RSS chief says Indian Muslims did not demolish Ram Mandir, vows to 'fight' for it

New Delhi, Mar 7: Prime Minister Narendra Modi turned emotional on Saturday when a woman beneficiary of his government's generic medicine programme told him that she had seen God in him.

Dehradun-resident Deepa Shah, who suffered paralysis in 2011, was interacting with the prime minister through video-conference on the occasion of Jan Aushadhi Diwas.

"I have not seen god, but I have seen God in you," she said, tears rolling down her eyes.

Modi was visibly emotional as the woman repeated her remark.

She also thanked the Uttarakhand chief minister and others who had helped her all along and said doctors had once told her that she cannot be cured.

"But on hearing your voice I have become better," she told Modi while profusely thanking the prime minister for his efforts to reduce the cost of medicines.

An emotional prime minister paused for a moment before telling her that it was her courage that had won over her disease and that she must carry on with the spirit.

Shah was expressing her plight and how she had suffered due to high cost of medicines after she suffered from paralysis in 2011 and has now started saving Rs 3,500 every month after benefitting from the government's low-cost generic medicines programme.

Soon after Shah rose to express her views, Modi asked her to sit and speak as he said she was uncomfortable while standing.

"You have defeated disease with your own will power. Your courage is your god and that same courage has given you the strength to emerge from such a big crisis. You should carry on this confidence in you," Modi told her.

He said some people still keep spreading rumours about generic medicines, going by their past experience, wondering how can medicines be available so cheap and that there must be something wrong with the medicine.

"But, by seeing you countrymen would gain confidence that there is nothing wrong in generic medicines. These medicines are not at all of inferior quality than any other medicine. These medicines have been certified by the best laboratories. These medicines are made in India and is 'Make in India' and are cheap," the prime minister said.

He said there is demand for generic medicines from India across the world and the government has made it mandatory for doctors to prescribe generic medicines to patients, unless necessary.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

New Delhi, Apr 24: The Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC) on Friday accused Delhi Police of framing two of its members - Meeran Haider, Safoora Zargar, along with student leader Umar Khalid, as part of "an imaginary conspiracy behind the recent North East Delhi riots".

While Haider was arrested on April 2, Zargar was taken in custody on April 10 for their alleged involvement in fuelling the riots.

"These arrests by the police have little ground, and the charges seem to have no rhyme or reason. Safoora was even granted bail in the case she was initially arrested in, following which she was arrested and had heavier charges placed against her," the JCC said in a statement.

Meeran, Safoora and Umar have been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which allows curbing of fundamental rights in order to protect the sovereignty of India. The JCC, however, claimed that in this case, the Act is being used to suppress their voices.

"This Act has been used against many activists working to protect constitutional morality, a list which now includes members of the JCC, a wholly constitutionalist collective of students and alumni," the JCC said, defending its members.

JCC maintained it had no role in Delhi riots, but apprehended that more people will be arrested by the Delhi Police as part of its conspiracy against students and protestors.

"It is almost certain that more protesters will be framed and arrested in the conspiracy invented by the Delhi Police. JCC reiterates that it played no part in the riots, and this fact will be proved before any court of law," it said in a statement.

It also demanded political parties, and university administration take a stand for the two accused JCC members and student leader Umar Khalid.

The JCC came into existence after a violent face-off between Delhi Police and unruly anti-CAA protestors left Jamia Millia Islamia vandalised. It was after this, that a group of students from the Jamia Millia formed it to decide upon the future course of actions in protest against the CAA and the police action.